[JulianEdgar]

I've now read the paper carefully and I think it is very good indeed. Why?

1) Despite being based on models rather than full-size shapes, the models are detailed and the wind tunnel and authors highly reputable.

2) The shapes are measured very well, with pressure taps and Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) ie photographing real airflows.

3) The three shapes - squareback, fastback and notchback - match modern shape vehicles (so making, Freebeard, the old VW Type III data utterly irrelevant - unless you are working on a VW Type III of course).

4) There is no CFD involved - in fact, the data is of such high quality that it is designed to validate CFD!

5) Pressure and particle velocities are shown for the three different shapes, not only on centrelines but also to each side of the centrelines. That works really well eg the separation bubble in the middle / bottom of a notchback's rear window can be clearly seen, as can the different vortex behaviour of the different shapes. This is one of the very few papers on rear-end airflow where everything matches what I have seen and measured. (Not trying to be the arbiter of experts, but it gives me confidence when I see this.)

6) Overall CD and CLf and CLr values are shown for the different shapes. I don't think I have ever seen that so clearly done - same wind tunnel, same measuring approaches, modern shape car models.

For people who don't want to go into the nitty gritty of the paper (and it is complex in parts), I'll be doing a video on it. The key visual elements are Table 3 and Figures 13 (actually Fig 11 is probably more useful) and 14.